A little story – The birth of the ILO logo / Marc Carriche

For decades, ILO publications were marked by a symbol that retirees will no doubt remember: two parallel triangles with the initials ILO and BIT. Not very aesthetic, but we weren’t at the stage where every institution had its symbolic logo. In the Public Information Branch, at least one among us felt the need for a new symbol as the 50th anniversary approached: Peter David, a specialist in what was then called “visual publicity”, began to study some models.

In 1968, when preparations for the anniversary were considerably advanced, one of our initiatives brought things to a head. The Universal Postal Union (UPU), which I had contacted, asked us for a design which might be proposed to its member States, to which it would suggest dedicating stamps in 1969. Imaginations began to churn.

Peter David and some external designers drew up numerous plans. It wasn’t a simple matter. The image had to say it all: the ILO, tripartism, work, peace, the UN connection – and what else? – I have forgotten. It was essential that the symbol was easily legible, agreeable to the eye, readily reproducible, and in only one colour. A tall order!

Dozens of designs
Each design presented some advantages and, of course, some problems. There were weeks of hesitation, discussions, thousands of pencil marks and brush strokes. Finally, we decided on three possibilities to present to the Director-General. He asked us to consult his staff. Confronted out of the blue with such a trivial, yet at the same time important, problem and not much bothered (this was 1968) by imperatives of “communication” (the word was not yet in fashion), each of the chiefs responded individually, spontaneously. I well remember the remarks of three of them on one or other of the designs: “Where is tripartism?”; “It looks like a pregnant woman.”; “This one resembles a funeral wreath.”

We had, of course, already collected, among many an approval, not a few critical observations by colleagues – from messengers to experts passing through. But, well, these remarks …

The whole process reminded us of the geographic and social diversity of this special organization called the ILO. We knew that the eye gets too used to novelties after a while and they become jaded. We had to have a pattern that would last the course, that wouldn’t become out of date too soon. We were working for the future. Peter and his designer wanted to search further but to change as little as possible. And that’s what they did.

So there were three new designs to show to the directorate – no question, of course, of taking a decision of this sort without endorsement from on high. But the Director at that time had other worries – many of them. Inevitably, the time arrived when the deadline fixed by the UPU was – the next day. We had to take a logo to Berne. What to do?

And the final choice
The whole process had been followed by a young official of the DG’s Cabinet – who, I believe has subsequently had a brilliant career in his country. In a last pow-wow between our Branch and him, everyone stood up to his responsibilities. We agreed on a model, adopted it and made it official without further ado. And I took the train to Berne. The UPU set to work with a success that surpassed our expectations.

Full speed ahead: folders, brochures, books, press releases, films, everything was marked with the new symbol, which was adopted quickly throughout the house. No objection was ever raised. It was all a great success.
May it continue for a long time to symbolize an ILO worthy and proud of its past, decisive and brave before its future challenges. – But that will be another story.


Recalling Albert Thomas / Edward J. Phelan, Director-General 1941-1948

Albert Thomas, ILO’s first director, was born on 16 June 1878 and died on 9 May 1932. His memory is still very much alive at the ILO. The following is based on a speech given in 1934.

As Phelan points out, the struggle for social justice was the principle of life for Albert Thomas. “Social justice is not easy to define. To Albert Thomas it meant much more than the removal of social injustice. It meant a positive policy through which the individual might attain his political, economic and moral rights. This was the doctrine which he believed could alone give the Organization a real unity and personality, which could guide it safely where narrower doctrines would inevitably lead it to a division along lines of national interest.”1
IE

I first met Albert Thomas in January 1920. He had come to London to assume the weighty task of Director of the ILO.

It was on this occasion that he did me the honour of summoning me to his side. I worked with him until he died. I was with him at all the meetings of the Governing Body and at every session of the International Labour Conference; I accompanied him on his important political missions to America and the Far East; I accompanied him on less distant, but perhaps more dangerous, missions to the Court in the Hague.

I was thus able to observe his work in detail and, as a citizen of a small country, Ireland, somewhat removed from the world’s mainstream, I can bear witness to his work without being influenced by any national or political bias.

Of our first meeting, it will perhaps surprise you, I retain the memory of a man who was silent, who listened, who did not speak. Much more frequently thereafter, I saw him vibrant with energy, imposing his creative will upon everyone, seething with impatience in the face of obstacles, performing with prodigious activity.

He sometimes quoted a saying of Saint Simon: “To do great things one must have passion.” And he had a passion, the passion of achievement, which consisted of an overwhelming energy, an impatience at times ending in outbursts of anger, an appetite for combating the obstacles which arose along his way.

But, behind all that, there was detached reflection. If he succeeded in overcoming difficulties, it was because he had weighed them up calmly, without any illusions, without allowing his burning desire to succeed to lead him to disdain or disregard them.

I now understand his silence in London. He had a vision which was much more farsighted than ours. He alone saw the immensity of the task that lay ahead, and before rushing into it, he measured it and prepared his plan.

What was this task? To create the International Labour Organization. It is true that the Washington Conference had been a success. But it was only the epilogue of the Peace Conference, the final surge of an end-of-war feeling which was somewhat fleeting.

The Constitution of the International Labour Organization was not in force. All that existed, like the decisions taken at Washington, was ink on paper. This had to be turned into men and things. Albert Thomas took those words and made the ILO out of them.

How? The office had to be put together with people of different nationalities, i.e. with different work methods, ways of thinking, and traditions. And for that no model, no experience, existed to guide him. Something entirely new had to be invented, neither French nor English, nor a copy based on any national model.

He did it. Such an achievement, all by itself, would have sufficed to ensure his renown as an administrator. But that was not enough.

First, Albert Thomas crafted the mechanism. But he also wanted, with what vision and good reason, to make this mechanism a living thing, to provide it with a conscience, a faith.

He did this, and at the same time he defined for the first time the nature of an international official and of his responsibilities. There he was treading on much more dangerous ground, where he was likely to arouse the bias of national sovereignties.

But he realized that no international organization could succeed if its international character were to give way to any kind of national pressure. He defended his institution and his staff on all sides against this sort of pressure, with the courage of his unfailing conviction.

Even as regards France, he did not hesitate to go to the Permanent Court of Justice and plead the thesis of the ILO’s competence in the field of agriculture when the French Government supported quite the opposite. He won his case: it is to France’s credit that it bowed to the opinion of the Court and did not hold it against Albert Thomas for having done his duty as Director of the ILO.
And so the Office was created, with officials of different nationalities, organized as a team, animated by a common spirit. Its competence was assured. Still this was not enough. The ILO, as the International Labour Organization is commonly known, is not, believe me, just a spacious building in Geneva, on the shores of the blue lake, housing distinguished officials.

The ILO is made up of 58 nations; it is a mechanism for collaboration amongst those nations, a complicated mechanism which must mesh together Councils of Ministers, parliaments, national and even colonial administrations, labour and medical inspection services, employers’ and workers’ organizations and, along with them, the individuals themselves, parliamentarians, administrators, employers, workers.

All this existed only in legal texts. Governments were only imperfectly aware of their obligations, administrations understood them only in an abstract manner, professional organizations were not aware of either their rights or their duties; public opinion and the masses knew nothing at all about them. This was the situation in not just one country but in all of them.

Creating habits of continuing collaboration amongst these diverse elements in over 50 countries was a superhuman task. Albert Thomas accomplished it.

He accomplished it through unbelievable personal effort, through constant travel in all the continents, in almost every country in the world, and thanks to a strong effort of ubiquity which kept him, no matter how distant, at the head of his administration; whether in Washington or Tokyo, he was still in Geneva.

I could tell you a great deal about those trips, each of which presented different problems. I will relate only one, which is astonishing: in all countries, despite their diversity, he had to employ the same personal influence that you knew in France, the same power of intellectual seduction; he always succeeded in obtaining a response of trust and understanding.

If he achieved this, it is because he deserved it. He had, it is true, exceptional gifts for it: a strong personality, alluring charm, a knowledge of things and of men, and the will to succeed. But his success did not come from these gifts alone; he added to them a formidable work effort. He never visited a country without first having studied it in depth: history, politics, industry, and even culture and art.

How could one refuse what he was requesting when he came to discuss, not about distant international problems, but about specific national problems of the day, concerning which he made clear the obvious links, unperceived until his visit, to the work of the ILO? When he had finished his trip to China, several Chinese said to me: “He’s the first European statesman to understand China.”

Even with all this travel, his task was far from over. Contacts had been established, the wheels were turning, Governing Bodies, Conferences and Committees were meeting: it all had to be endowed with a direction, a spirit. There again, he succeeded through huge personal effort. He thought; he thought for the Conference; but he led the International Labour Conference to thinking as he did.

In the Organization’s early years, an Englishman once made a witty comment which was a bit cruel: “The Governing Body”, he said, “is not a body and it doesn’t govern anything.” And that was true.

Albert Thomas dominated his Governing Body; he imposed decisions upon it from the start. But he did not have the mind of a dictator. He wanted to create a body which was a genuine Governing Body, even if he had to rise up against it at times. He succeeded: today a Governing Body exists which governs.

In this way, year by year, Albert Thomas brought the Governing Body to understand its responsibilities, and to take them. Year by year, he got the Conference, which was inclined to restrict itself to its technical agenda, to examine the social problem in its entirety, to see as he did the never-ending new problems, to unite with him in seeking solutions.

I will not speak to you about these solutions and the ideas which inspired them. The subject would be too vast. What I have attempted to do is to show you an aspect of Albert Thomas’ work which was maybe not unknown, but which was insufficiently understood.

His life principle was the struggle for social justice. But for him, social justice was not something abstract. He understood it as a fact, which had to be made real by genuine progress from one Conference to another. Within a gigantic vision, he perceived the instrument whereby such progress could be obtained. He conceived this instrument on a worldwide scale; he understood that it had to be central to administrations and organizations of all countries.

For anyone else but him, it would have been a fantastic dream; for him it was a plan. Through prodigious effort, which will one day be considered a legend, he made this plan a reality.

If the ILO exists today as a powerful organization, a network encircling the globe, we owe it to him. And if the ILO stands firm, if it does not falter at a time when faith in international organizations appears to be hesitant, it is because he has provided it with a spirit and a personality, along with a well-oiled mechanism.

He did so knowingly.

At the laying of the cornerstone of the present ILO building, he said: “A soul will reside within the house we are going to build.” That soul lives there, a soul that he created.

It will continue to live there for as long as there are men who are inspired by his principles, for as long as human intelligence refuses to abdicate before the challenge of poverty and of injustice.


The Election of Albert Thomas as the first Director of the ILO / Carl V. Bramsnaes

Who would become the first Director of the International Labour Office? That was the essential question during the first session of the Conference which was held in Washington, DC in the autumn of 1919.

The International Labour Conference had been convened in Washington by President Wilson, but the attitude of the United States towards this new world body created by the Peace Conference in Versailles in Paris was uncertain, and the candidates for the election of the director could hardly be anyone than an Englishman or a Frenchman.

The organizer of the Conference was Harold Butler. As a high-level British civil servant, he had played a very important role during the Conference in Paris in the commission which dealt with social questions, and had participated in the elaboration of Chapter XIII of the Treaty, which constituted the basis for the International Labour Organization. It was certainly not an easy task to have organized such a Conference for the first time especially as there was no experience in the subject matter; great skill and never-ending patience were required. Harold Butler had demonstrated his ability as an organizer.

The Conference itself had been a huge success if one looks at the social aspects and the numerous Conventions adopted almost unanimously by the tripartite parties. In these circumstances, Harold Butler’s name was at the top of the list in the private discussions about who should be the first Director of the ILO.

Another name which was likewise mentioned was that of Arthur Fontaine, head of the French delegation to the Conference. Fontaine had been one of the most eminent representatives of the group in Paris preparing the social part of the Peace Treaty. However, beyond these discussions about the names, the idea was also being floated of postponing the election of the DG until a later date.

That was the state of affairs in which the election took place. What happened next? The members of the first Governing Body had been elected by the Conference. One of the member States elected was Denmark; and in my capacity as a member of the delegation of the Government of Denmark, I was able to participate in meetings of the Governing Body. At the first meeting of this newly-elected body, Arthur Fontaine was nominated as Chair, initially on a provisional basis, but, after a debate and under pressure from the workers’ group, he was confirmed.

This election – which may not have corresponded to his own wishes – eliminated Fontaine from consideration as candidate for the job as Director. The workers’ group which wanted a definite decision insisted once again on proceeding with an immediate election of a Director-General – and that contained a surprise!

Albert Thomas

When the votes were counted after the secret ballot, it was observed that there were only three votes in favour of Butler against nine for Albert Thomas, with several abstentions. As there were very few votes cast, they proceeded to a new round of voting which again resulted in a majority for Albert Thomas over Butler, albeit with a reduced majority.

There was no doubt that the workers’ group played a decisive role in this election in the Governing Body and that the employers’ group provided the necessary support in securing the election of Albert Thomas. As far as I know, the majority of government members on the second ballot voted in favour of Butler. The name of Albert Thomas was never mentioned amongst the government delegates to the Conference.

From a technical point of view, Albert Thomas was an outsider in this election, but he deserved to win. Harold Butler was revered as a man possessing remarkable ability and great skill, but to build the ILO, Albert Thomas had higher qualifications.

His abundant dynamism, his immense energy, his exuberant enthusiasm were indispensible qualifications to give this new organization an eminent place in social policy in the world that the ILO should not delay occupying. In collaboration with Albert Thomas, Harold Butler, as deputy director was able to allow the ILO to benefit from his qualifications as an administrator and from his intellect in an efficient manner; he was an excellent successor to head the Office after the death of Albert Thomas; But the ILO would never have become the organization of social policy par excellence without Albert Thomas.

Chapter XIII of the Peace Treaty described the International Labour Organization – as it was left to Albert Thomas to create it.

The last session of the GB in which Albert Thomas participated and his last Conference are still fresh in my mind. Both were in April 1932, at a time when one of the most terrible economic crises shook the world in which unemployment reached unprecedented levels. Everyone who knew Albert Thomas understood that he considered it as an obligation of the Organization to adopt proposals, which would be capable of attenuating the repercussions of the crisis.

Even when he was weakened by a long attack of flu he rose with his energy and his usual combative spirit to defend a resolution before the Governing Body, a commission of the Conference and the ILC itself. It was not an easy task, but the Conference adopted the resolution by a vote of 73 to three. Only the personality of Albert Thomas and the huge amount for respect shown for him would have allowed such an outcome.

That was his last triumph. The Conference ended on 30 April 1932. Eight days later, Albert Thomas died in Paris.


Some side aspects of ILO history / François Agostini

From the start, some confusion seems to have arisen over the ILO’s official title, as two denominations co-existed for some time in the early twenties. Those were the “Permanent Labour Organisation” and “International Labour Organisation”. –

Which was the correct one?

The terms of reference of the Commission on International Labour Legislation which was set up by the Paris Peace Conference to draft the ILO Constitution were “… to enquire into the conditions of employment from the international aspect, and to consider the international means necessary to secure common action on matters affecting conditions of employment, and to recommend the form of a permanent agency to continue such enquiry in cooperation with and under the direction of the League of Nations”.

Some emphasis was thus put on the permanent character of the new agency, and we see the word “permanent” appearing again in article 387 of the Versailles Treaty (article I of the ILO Constitution, or Charter, as we shall see further on): “A permanent organisation is hereby established for the promotion of the objects set forth in the Preamble.” Likewise, article 388 (article 2 of the ILO Constitution) reads: “The permanent organisation shall consist of …”.

From the foregoing, it may be inferred that “Permanent Labour Organisation” was to be the official title. Indeed, the front cover of the bilingual text of the Constitution, October 1921 edition reads: ‘Permanent Labour Organisation” and “Organisation permanent du Travail”.

As this was an official document, we must admit the validity of that denomination. However, another official document, adopted earlier, points to quite another direction. The Standing Orders of the Conference, adopted in Washington on 21 November 1919, specifically mention ‘the International Labour Organisation” (article I).

The situation therefore, seems to have been that both denominations co-existed for some time, until “International Labour Organisation” prevailed. When, exactly, is difficult to ascertain. It can be said, however, that evolution was slower in French, if we are to trust some authors: M. Gerreau, “Une nouvelle institution du Droit des Gens, l’Organisation permanente, du Travail”, Paris 1923; E. Mahaim “L’Organisation permanente du Travail”, Paris, Hachette, 1923 C. Argentieu, “Les résultats acquis par l’Organisation permanente du Travail, 1919-1929”, Paris, Sirey, 1930. But as early as 1924, Albert Thomas titled “L’Organisation internationale du Travail” the comprehensive, informative essay he contributed to the series “Les origines et l’œuvre de la Société des Nations” published in Denmark under the direction of P. Munch. Likewise, the 1920-27 edition of the “Annuaire de la SdN’, published in Geneva under the direction of George Ottlik refers throughout to the “Organisation internationale du Travail”.

While not official League publications, the “Annuaires” were nevertheless based exclusively on League (and ILO) documents and were prepared in close cooperation with the Secretariat and the Office and prefaced by senior League and ILO officials. They can therefore, be trusted as a reliable reflection of officialdom.

To conclude whereas “Permanent Labour Organisation” seemed at first to have serious claims to be retained as the agency’s official title, it soon lost ground (and apparently earlier in English than in French) before “International Labour Organisation” which eventually prevailed. Note that the word Organisation was then spelled with an “s”, not with a “z” as later.


The First International Labour Conference, 1919 / Harold B. Butler, ILO Director 1932-1938

Harold B. Butler (1883-1951) studied at Oxford, entered the British Civil Service 1907; Ministry of Labour 1917 as Assistant Secretary to the Minister. In 1918 he, Phelan and Malcolm Delevigne drafted a programme for the Labour Section of the Paris Peace Conference. In 1919 he was appointed Secretary to the Organizing Committee and Secretary-General of the First Session of the ILC in Washington, DC. In the early years of the ILO he served as Deputy Director of the Office, with responsibility for administration and finance. In 1932 he succeeded Albert Thomas as Director of the ILO. He resigned in 1938 and became Warden at Huffield College, Oxford. Commissioner for Civil Defense 1939 to 1941 and Minister at the British Embassy in Washington D.C. from 1942 to 1946.

Butler had a considerable influence on the work of the first Conference. As Edward Phelan later was to write: “In moments of difficulty, and more particularly on constitutional and procedural questions, the Conference listened most readily to those who had planned it in Paris and to none with more attention than to the Secretary-General, Mr. Butler.

While the Peace Treaty provided for the composition of the Annual Labour Conference it left it to determine its own procedure. The Organizing Committee devoted considerable care and labour to drafting a set of provisional Standing Orders, which were adopted at the second sitting of the Conference but which were then referred to a special committee of the Conference for further examination.

This committee, after prolonged discussion, submitted a revised set of Standing Orders in 20 Articles, which were adopted by the Conference. They do not call for any detailed comment here, but they suggest two general observations. In the first place, experience has since shown the wisdom of the Organizing Committee and of the Conference in settling the parliamentary procedure of the Conference at the very beginning. Practice differs considerably from country to country.

The powers of the chairman, the method of moving resolutions, the method of voting, the application of the closure, are all matters of vital importance to the proper conduct of any gathering, but matters about which the greatest variety of custom prevails in the different assemblies of the world. As the Committee observed:

It has not been possible to find in every case a rule which everyone will regard as satisfactory. This fact should be borne in mind, and it should be recognized that the procedure followed in any one country or group of countries could not be inserted in the Standing Orders.

They were, in fact, the first set of international standing orders ever framed, resting on a compromise between a large number of national practices. Although they have since been amended from time to time, they have on the whole stood the test of practical application, and have rendered great service to the Organization by providing it with a body of rules to which the members of the Conference have gradually become thoroughly accustomed. The resulting expedition in the dispatch of business and the avoidance of confusion in regard to procedure have saved the Conference many hours of time and much loss of patience.

The other point which merits notice is the emergence of the language question at the first Conference held under the auspices of the International Labour Organization. Viscount de Eza, representing the Spanish Government, put forward a plea for the recognition of Spanish as a third official language. His claim led to similar pleas put forward for the recognition of German and one of the Slav languages. In point of fact, an arrangement had already been made whereby a translation of the proceedings into Spanish was daily provided for the delegates at the expense of the United States Government. No international meeting can function effectively unless at least the great majority of its members can follow the proceedings satisfactorily. In the Labour Conference, where the delegates do not usually possess the same advantages, the necessity of interpreting the proceedings to them, as far as possible in a variety of languages, was thus early found to be imperative.

The Washington Conference set a further precedent of far-reaching importance in the future history of the Organization in recognizing the existence of the employers’ and workers’ groups. When the Treaty was drawn up it was probably not foreseen that the employers’ and workers’ delegates, being necessarily bound by strong ties of common sympathy and interest, would inevitably tend to form distinct blocs with a view to united action. In any case, no provision of the Treaty suggests that such an eventuality was contemplated. Nevertheless, before the Conference had even assembled for the first time, the two groups were already taking shape.

In the case of the employers, the germ of such an organization was already in existence. In 1911, Signor Olivetti organized the first International Congress of Industrial and Agricultural Employers’ Organizations (Congresso internazionale dell’organisazioni padronali dell’industria e dell’ agricoltura). This meeting gave birth to the idea of setting up an international employers’ information centre, and in 1913 M. Carlier and M. Lecocq, at that time President and Secretary respectively of the Comité central industriel de Belgique, got into touch with various European countries in search of support for creating such a centre. As a result of a meeting held in Paris in June, 1914, its establishment was agreed upon, with M. Carlier and M. Lecocq as President and Secretary respectively. The War prevented the realization of the project, but they revived it when the convening of the Washington Conference was announced. On reaching Washington they took the initiative, in conjunction with M. Guérin (France) and Mr. Marjoribanks (Great Britain) by inviting employers’ delegates to attend a meeting in the Navy Building on October 28, the day before the opening of the Conference. From that time onwards, it was the employers’ group thus constituted which put forward employers’ nominations for the Vice-Presidency, for the membership of committees, and, finally, for membership of the Governing Body. It decided at group meetings the policy which should be adopted in regard to most, if not all, of the questions which came up for discussion, and a series of important amendments to the draft convention on hours of work was moved on behalf of the whole employers’ group. Finally, before the Conference closed, the group drew up and signed on November 23 statutes for a permanent international organization of employers.

The formation of the workers’ group was of even more natural development and required scarcely any preparation. The International Federation of Trade Unions had just been successfully reconstituted at Amsterdam, and had taken a leading part in the negotiations in regard to the admission of Germany and Austria which preceded the Conference. Its authority was so well established as to be beyond cavil or criticism. Indeed, it had even gone so far as to demand that all workers’ delegates should be chosen in agreement with the organizations affiliated with the Federation. In these circumstances, it was natural that the leaders of the Federation, who were themselves delegates to the Conference, should act in unison and at once set about organizing their fellow workers as a disciplined group.

On November 1, two days after the opening of the Conference, M. Mertens, as president of the workers’ group, informed the Secretary-General that M. Oudegeest had been appointed as its secretary. Like the employers’ group, it held regular meetings during the Conference, and submitted a series of group amendments to the Organizing Committee’s draft of the Hours Convention. As in the case of the employers, the workers’ nominations on committees and on the Governing Body were settled by discussion in the workers’ group.

It would be out of place to develop here the important part which these natural formations have since come to play in the working of the Organization. Though at times they have been subjected to criticism on the ground that they have introduced too large an element of discipline, and thus repressed individual expressions of opinion, on the other hand it is not open to doubt that without the collective expression of the employers’ and workers’ views during the discussions of the Conference, and the joint negotiations with a view to reaching agreement which they have made possible, the solutions of its problems would have been infinitely more arduous and their outcome less satisfactory. Moreover, the existence of the groups served to preserve and emphasize the essentially tripartite character of the Conference. The result has been that it has come to view the questions before it much less from a national point of view than from the point of view of their technical merits, and their bearing on the interests of those concerned in production.

The constitution of this Committee was another happy instance of the prevision exercised by the Organizing Committee. They foresaw the necessity of creating some supreme organ of the Conference, fully representative of its various groupings, to which all questions relating to its proceedings might be referred.

By this device lengthy debates on procedure were avoided, and it was possible to reach decisions as to the general conduct of the debates, the setting up of committees, and other general questions which could hardly have been settled expeditiously and satisfactorily in the full Conference. Here again an important precedent was established, which was to prove its value in future years and to become an essential feature of every the session of the Labour Conference.

Washington Conference 1919, Organizing Committee: in the center standing, Harold Butler and on his right hand Edward Phelan.

Finally, a word should be said as to the secretarial work of the Conference.

As the International Labour Office was not yet in existence, the secretariat was necessarily recruited in a somewhat haphazard fashion from such elements as were available. Some of its principal members had already acquired some international experience on the staffs of the Commission of the Peace Conference or of the Organizing Committee. Others were borrowed from the embryonic secretariat of the League, while the executive and material arrangements were mainly entrusted to the American personnel recruited on
the spot.

The central feature which distinguishes the secretariat of the Conference from those of previous international conferences is that while the higher officials were all drawn from different nationalities, the secretariat itself was organized not on national but on functional lines.

Naturally, very great difficulties were encountered in organizing a staff recruited at short notice from such heterogeneous elements into an efficient team. Nevertheless, the experience gained at Washington proved conclusively that it was possible to obtain loyal cooperation and a high standard of performance from an international staff.

As the Secretary-General remarked at the end of the Conference, the staff worked with great enthusiasm because they realized that they were assisting in a great movement and had shown by the success which had attended their efforts “that international cooperation may be as successful in the realm of administration as the Conference has shown it to be in the realm of legislation.”

The Governing Body

As will have been already gathered, one of the remarkable features of the Washington Conference was the manner in which it brought to light the major problems inherent in the aims and structure of the International Labour Organization. Not least among these problems was the treatment of the oversea countries. Before the War no extra-European country had taken part in the meetings convened under the auspices of the Association for International Labour Legislation. This was due partly to its purely European origin and inspiration, and partly to the comparatively slight development of industry in oversea countries with the exception of the United States, and even the United States was only beginning to export manufactured articles on a considerable scale. The tremendous demands for war material and the obstacles placed by war conditions in the way of sea transport had deprived the over-sea countries, during five years, of the greater part of the supplies which they had been accustomed to receive from European factories.

During that time many of them had come to develop industries capable of furnishing their own needs, while some of them, such as Japan and Canada, had been stimulated to produce goods for export, either in order to supply the belligerents, whose appetite for munitions of all kinds was practically unlimited, or to capture the over-sea markets, urgently demanding goods which the belligerents were no longer able to offer. In consequence, industrialism had made considerable strides during the War in the over-sea countries, particularly in Asia and America, and many of them had become alive to industrial and social problems, to which they had devoted little attention in the past. It was therefore natural that they should expect to play a larger part in the deliberations of the Conference and to figure more prominently in the principal committees.

During the Conference this issue came prominently to the front on two occasions: the first in connection with the appointment of the Commission to deal with migration, the second in connection with the election of the Governing Body.

The report of the Committee on Unemployment proposed, inter alia, the adoption of a resolution recommending the Governing Body to appoint a Commission to deal with migration problems. Mr. Gemmill, the delegate of the employers of South Africa, moved an amendment on November 25 proposing that “the representation of the States on the European Continent on the Commission should be limited to one half of the total membership of the Commission.” He justified this motion by pointing out that migration was a question that affected both European and oversea countries equally, and that the latter’s interests were consequently quite as much at stake as those of the former. The amendment was eventually carried and represented the first indication of the part which the oversea countries were determined to play in the life of the Organization.

This motion, however, would possibly not have been pressed with so much vigor, had the election of the Governing Body fallen out differently. That election had been announced in the Conference on November 25. It was the result of long discussions and negotiations in the Selection Committee, where the oversea countries had claimed considerably more places than they eventually secured. In the case of the government group, eight of the twelve places available were already assigned by the Treaty to the eight States of chief industrial importance. Among these, Japan and the United States were the only oversea countries included in the list proposed by the Organizing Committee. The Indian Delegation therefore protested, claiming that India was entitled to inclusion as of right in the list, and their first delegate, Mr. Louis Kershaw, declined to take part in the election until the Council of the League had pronounced on the Indian objection. There remained four governments to be elected by the government delegates present at the Conference, with the exception of those representing the eight States chief industrial importance. This election resulted in Argentina, Canada, Poland, and Spain being chosen to fill the vacant places. It was also recommended that in the event of a vacancy occurring Denmark should take the vacant place, a proviso intended to meet the situation which would arise if the United States did not ratify the Treaty.

Thus, four out of the twelve government seats were filled by oversea representatives in the first instance. At a later date, when the Council of the League drew up an official list of the eight States of chief industrial importance, it included not only India but also Canada, a fact which lent some color to the sense of ill-treatment which was prevalent among the oversea delegates at Washington.

Although attempts had been made to secure a measure of oversea representation in the employers’ group, that group in fact nominated six European representatives, while the workers’ group, which disclaimed nationality as a basis for selection at all, appointed five Europeans and one Canadian to represent it in the Governing Body.

The first meeting of the Governing Body, which was held on 27-28 November 1919, therefore comprised twenty European members out of twenty-four. This result provoked a vigorous protest from the oversea delegates, which was finally crystallized in the form of a resolution presented by Mr. Gemmill and supported by a large number of over-sea delegates, expressing “its disapproval of the composition of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office inasmuch as no less than 20 of the 24 members of that body are representatives of European- countries.” Arthur Fontaine on the other hand claimed that the title of countries to membership of the Governing Body should be determined not by considerations of geographical distribution, but by their industrial development and experience, and by the importance of their industrial interests.

When the question was put to the vote, the Conference was very evenly divided. Mr. Gemmill’s motion was adopted by forty-four votes to thirty-nine, the majority being composed of thirty-five oversea delegates, including the workers’ delegates from Guatemala, India, Japan, Peru, and South Africa, together with nine European votes. The minority consisted, with one exception, of European delegates, but most of the workers’ delegates and a number of other delegates abstained from voting.

Moreover, Mr. Gemmill’s initiative at Washington proved to be the starting point for an amendment of Article 393 of the Treaty itself in order to give better representation to the oversea countries.

Nevertheless, despite the differences which had arisen in connection with the distribution of seats, the Conference proceeded to constitute the Governing Body, which thereupon sat for the first time at Washington. This was a step of immense importance in initiating the work of the Organization. It was felt, particularly by the workers’ group, to be imperative that the International Labour Office should be created as soon as possible, if the continuity and development of the work of the Conference was to be assured. The Office could not be created, however, until a Director was appointed, and the Director could only be appointed by the Governing Body. There is no doubt that the view taken by the workers’ group was both sound in itself and justified in the event. When it met for the first time in November 27, the Governing Body elected Mr. Arthur Fontaine as its first Chairman, and Mr. Albert Thomas as provisional Director of the Office. By these two decisions, which were announced on the last day but one of the Conference, the future of the Organization was, as it proved to be, amply assured. Mr. Fontaine’s appointment as Chairman was clearly indicated by his preeminent services at the Piece Conference as Chairman of the Organizing Committee, and as a delegate to the Conference, and for more than eleven years he guided the Governing Body on its way with unsurpassed ability and judgment.

Those who did not already know Mr. Albert Thomas’s brilliant qualities and forceful personality were quickly convinced on acquaintance with him that in his hands the Office would become a great instrument fitted to play the part assigned to it by the authors of the Treaty. Here again, the Washington Conference laid well and truly the foundations of the Organization.

The Achievement of the Conference

In assessing the achievement of the Washington Conference after an interval of thirteen years, one cannot but be struck by the sharpness with which it brought into relief the principal problems which have since been in the forefront of the preoccupations of the International Labour Organization. One is also struck by the vigor and directness with which the Conference proceeded to attack all of these problems and by the progress which it accomplished in preparing, in the short space of five weeks, the groundwork for their solution. It has moreover to be remembered that the constitutional and political issues which have been the subject of this chapter did not constitute the main work of the Conference. The greater part of its time was devoted to drawing up six conventions dealing with hours of work in industry, unemployment, the night work of women, the night work of young persons, the age of admission of children to industrial employment, and the employment of women before and after childbirth. In addition to these conventions, it adopted a series of no less than six recommendations and eight resolutions on aspects of the questions on the Agenda which were not thought suitable for treatment in the Conventions.

At the same time enthusiasm alone could not have enabled the Conference to deal with so large an Agenda. The careful planning of the authors of Part XIII of the Treaty and of the Organizing Committee must also be given a large share of the credit. They had devised a procedure inspired by a real understanding of the conditions necessary to success in international conferences. In the first place, the thoroughness with which the preparatory work was carried out alone made it possible to bring the discussion of the six main points on the Agenda to positive conclusions. The reports presented by the Organizing Committee enabled the delegates to appreciate from the start the extent to which general agreement already prevailed and thus to concentrate on the points which required detailed negotiation and compromise. As a result, the six Draft Conventions, which really laid the foundations of a code of international Labour legislation, were not only duly voted, but were subsequently ratified and put into effect to an extent which shows that they were sound and workmanlike documents. Every international conference since the War has illustrated the lesson that success depends largely upon the care and foresight with which the preliminary work is carried out and that without that indispensable condition failure is almost inevitable.

Indeed, the methods of procedure so successfully applied at Washington furnished a model on which later conferences held under the auspices of the International Labour Organization have operated. It may even be suggested without exaggeration that the degree of achievement of other international conferences has varied largely with the extent to which they followed or ignored the same methods. There is a technique of international discussion, which has to be learnt and which has to be applied by those who understand it. One of the merits of the Washington Conference is that it made a considerable contribution to the formation of such a technique. But good technique, essential though it was, would not by itself have enabled it to solve the many and various problems before it.

A Conference imbued with a lesser faith might well have shrunk from confronting so boldly some of the difficult problems about which decisions were reached at Washington. It might even have hesitated to take any action at all toward setting the permanent machinery of the Organization in motion, in view of the doubt as to the legal validity of the decisions of the Conference which brooded over its deliberations from the beginning to the end. The American Government had emphasized the view that the Conference could have no legality in as much as the Treaty was not in operation. Indeed, Secretary Wilson had explained his final acceptance of the chairmanship on the ground that the Conference could have nothing but an unofficial character, and in his opening address he pointed out that the completion of the organization of the Conference could not take place until the League of Nations had been created and that the final technical steps had not yet been taken, although the creation of the League was then an assured fact. Had the Conference been less determined to brush aside all obstacles in the way of launching the first working part of the League of Nations, it might well have been dismayed by these juridical flaws in its mandate.

They were, in fact, twice discussed by the Selection Committee. Finally, the Governing Body recommended a solution proposed by Mr. Fontaine, which had the merit of being both simple and comprehensive, namely, that the Conference should, as proposed by the Organizing Committee, proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty as if it were legally constituted, and should leave it to the discretion of the Governing Body to take any steps that might be necessary to make its decisions legally effective when the Treaty of Peace came into operation, the Governing Body accordingly being free to reconvene it or to declare it closed as it might think fit. This proposal commended itself to the Conference, which adopted it by the adequate majority of 73 votes to six.

The Governing Body, when it assembled at its second session in January 1920, experienced no great difficulty in cutting the legal knot. The legal adviser to the Conference had maintained the view that the Governing Body required to take no action. When the Governing Body met on January 26, 1920, it would be sufficient if it was considered that the Governing Body, in virtue of the authority delegated to it by the Conference, declared the Washington Session of the Conference closed. This course was accordingly recommended by the Director [Albert Thomas] to the Governing Body, when it met, was adopted unanimously without any prolonged discussion, and was duly notified to the States Members.

All the constitutional obstacles which barred the path of the Washington Conference were thus successfully surmounted. They could scarcely have been overcome, had not there existed a strong determination in all its component sections to achieve success at any cost, and to translate the provisions of Part XIII of the Treaty into a living reality without delay. That is perhaps the outstanding achievement of the Washington Conference, which gives it a special place in the history of the International Labour Organization, and which gives it something of the character of a constituent assembly.

Note:

1 The choice of French and English as official languages was contested at the 1919 Conference. Out of the 36 State Members present, 16 were Spanish speaking. Also the supporters of German voiced their claim, the political bias from wartime was at first a barrier. In the end in 1927 it was decided to adopt Spanish and German as languages of the ILC. (IE)


Before Versailles: the genesis of the ILO 1 By David A. Morse, Director-General 1948-1970

Let me begin with the Paris Peace Conference, which assembled in January 1919, two months after the armistice, which put an end to hostilities in the First World War.

At one of the first sessions, the Conference set up a Commission on International Labor Legislation, of which Samuel Gompers, the first president of the American Federation of Labor, was chairman.

Some of the delegates may have thought it rather surprising that one of the first acts of the Peace Conference should relate to labor; but there was general recognition that the ferment and instability, which characterized the world of labor and industry in 1918 and 1919, particularly in Europe, called for immediate and constructive action.

The Commission, which was composed of representatives of nine countries2, had to deal with the important question of whether it should propose that there be included in the Peace Treaty a full-fledged Constitution of a Permanent International Labor Organization, or whether it should simply recommend the inclusion of a general declaration of principles, a sort of Labor Charter.

It finally decided to formulate the Constitution of an organization which would be designed to examine new problems of labor and industry as they arose and to assist in finding solutions for them. In addition, but only secondarily, it agreed to approve a list of general principles. The Commission’s report consisted of two parts, one containing the Constitution of the proposed International Labor Organization, including provisions concerning its relations with the League of Nations; the other, the list of general principles on labor matters.

The report was adopted by the Peace Conference during April 1919. Both parts were subsequently embodied in the Treaty of Versailles.

Although the Paris Peace Conference is remembered mainly for its short-lived policies and decisions on political and economic affairs, its main decision in the field of social policy – the establishment of the ILO – continues today to have a far-reaching impact on the world.

Before going on to describe the Constitution of the ILO, I should like to glance for a moment back into history.

By a curious historical coincidence, it was almost exactly a century before the Paris Conference that for the first time proposals for action in each nation to regulate conditions of labor were submitted to an international conference by the Welsh-Scottish industrialist, Robert Owen, at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle. At the time, Owen was a voice crying in the wilderness, but the years that followed other employers’ advocated action to the same end, Hindley in England and Legrand in France.

It was their realization that efforts in the direction of national legislation to regulate conditions of labor would be impeded by the lack of coordinated international action in the field, which led Hindley, and Legrand in the 1830’s and 1840’s to advocate international labor treaties of conventions.

On the side of the workers, the International Working Men’s Association, the First International, formed in 1864, the Second International, formed in 1889, and the International Federation of Trade Unions, which traced its origins to a conference held in 1901 and which was formally constituted in 1913, all voiced in different ways the international aspirations of the workers to improve the lot of working men everywhere.


Berlin Conference 1890

Governments also, influenced by currents of economic and social thought in the nineteenth century, as well as pressures exerted by or on behalf of workers, had taken some action. In 1890, after earlier initiatives by Colonel Frey,
President of the Swiss Confederation, an international conference on conditions of labor was convened in Berlin by Chancellor Bismarck.

Thus, employers, workers, and governments all played a part, though separately, in the evolution of the concept of international action for the promotion of labor standards. All these initiatives had been inspired by men who were genuinely concerned with the hardships, which nineteenth-century industrialization and economic competition inflicted upon workers.

In 1900, very largely as a result of this growing “social conscience” in European countries, the International Association for Labor Legislation, a nongovernmental organization which received financial support from interested governments, was established. This organization, although its work had little immediate effect on national legislation, can be considered a direct forerunner of the ILO.

Near the end of the First World War, when Allied governments were making preparations for the Peace Conference, they had to take due account of the international workers’ conferences, held during the war in Leeds, Stockholm, and Berne, which urged and resolved that the terms of peace should ensure to the workers minimum guarantees in regards to labor legislation and trade union rights, in recognition of the signal services rendered during the war by the workers, both in the factories and on the battlefield.. All this explains why the Commission on International Labor Legislation was set up, at the Paris Peace Conference, and why the report of the Commission was unanimously adopted by the International Labour Conference.

_________________________

1 Extract from his Cornell Lectures, 1969. The complete series of Lectures were published under the title The Origin and Evolution of the ILO and Its Role in the World Community, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1969.
2 Belgium, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, Italy, Japan, Poland, United Kingdom, United States. See James T. Shotwell, Origins of the International Labour Organisation, vol. 1, pp. 128-129. New York, Colombia 1934



Guinea / Abdoulaye Lélouma Diallo

My participation in the ILO’s activities over the years has allowed me to recall many events that remain forever etched in my memory. They have strengthened my conviction to continue participating in the activities of our tripartite Organization whose fundamental mission is, and will remain, the promotion of decent work and workers, the promotion of peace, solidarity and social justice through dialogue and negotiation in a globalized world. I would like to draw your attention to some of these events below.

“My country, the Republic of Guinea, joined the ILO on 21 January 1959 and has so far ratified 62 Conventions, including eight fundamental ones.

The National Confederation of Workers of Guinea (CNTG), of which I have been a member and now an honorary member, has always participated as a Delegate for Workers at the sessions of the International Labour Conference since Guinea’s accession to the ILO.

Since 1977, I have been fortunate to participate in all International Labour Conferences, either as a Delegate of the OATUU (Organization of African Trade Union Unity) or as Senior Specialist for Africa at ILO-ACTRAV (Bureau Activities for Workers).

Since 2004, I have attended all sessions of the ILO Governing Body as Permanent Representative of OATUU to the ILO and the United Nations Office in Geneva.

I am lucky to have met four Directors General of the ILO: Messrs. Francis Blanchard, Michel Hansenne, Juan Somavia and Guy Ryder.

I was elected President of the Staff Union in 1996. I took my pension in November 2001 and the Director General at that time, Mr. Juan Somavia, attended the reception organized in my honour by ACTRAV on the 6th November 2001. The event looms large among my unforgettable memories.

My participation in conferences and other ILO activities has strengthened my conviction and commitment to continue the trade union struggle to promote the well-being of workers, the unity of trade union action, solidarity and cooperation at the regional, continental and international levels.

I welcome the positive contribution of the ILO to the struggle of the African Workers and their trade union organizations against apartheid in South Africa and for the respect of freedom of association and the right to strike in Africa.

I would like to mention the following events that, among others, will remain etched in my memory forever:

1) The personal participation of the Vice-President of the African National Congress (ANC), the unforgettable hero Nelson Mandela, at the 77th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 1990, to express his gratitude to the tripartite constituents for their solidarity and the support given to the South African people in their struggle against apartheid.

2) The signing of the collective agreement protocol between the Staff Union and the Director General, Mr Juan Somavia, in 2000.

3) The election in 2008 to the vice-presidency of the Conference of Mrs. Rabiatou Sérah DIALLO Secretary General of the National Confederation of Workers of Guinea (CNTG), titular member of the Governing Body of the ILO.

4) The meetings between the African Workers’ Delegates under the leadership of the OATUU with the Director General, Mr. Guy Ryder, and his visit to the headquarters of the OUSA in Accra.

(5) The hearing granted to the Bureau of the Section of Former ILO Officials, of which I am a member, by the Director-General, Mr. Guy Ryder, and the annual receptions for ILO retirees.

As a Guinean, I would like to congratulate the Director-General, Mr. Guy Ryder, for the solidarity shown to Guinea during the EBOLA haemorrhagic fever that afflicted my country in 2014-2015.

In conclusion, I would like to recall that, when the ILO was created in 1919, Africa was represented by only three countries (Ethiopia, Liberia and South Africa) and today 54 countries of our continent are members of this historic Organization, the only tripartite one in the United Nations system. Thanks to the participation of African tripartite constituents in the activities of the ILO and the ratification of the fundamental Conventions by several States, today the recognition of freedom of association and the right to strike appears in the majority of the Constitutions of African countries.

As a member of the Bureau of the Section of Former ILO Officials, I would like to strengthen relations with current ILO staff and promote cooperation with the tripartite constituents of the 187 member states of our Organization to ensure the celebrations of the ILO Centenary are a historic success. I wish every success to the Centenary celebrations of the Organization that values​WORK!.”


SHIF communications – Letter from the Section

Category : Archives

M. le Président du Comité de gestion de la CAPS

Genève, le 26 mars 2019

Monsieur le Président,

Le Bureau de la Section des anciens, très préoccupé par l’accès à l’information des retraités du BIT répartis à travers le monde, souhaite évoquer dans cette lettre la communication de la CAPS avec ses assurés, notamment les retraités.

Notre constat: d’une part, nous savons qu’une majorité de retraités n’accèdent pas ou utilisent très irrégulièrement l’internet soit qu’ils ne possèdent pas d’ordinateur à domicile soit qu’ils en disposent d’un mais ne l’utilisent pas ou très peu. D’autre part, des informations sont diffusées par la CAPS par broadcast via l’intranet au personnel actif du BIT; les retraités exclus de l’intranet n’ont donc pas accès à ces informations. Nous avons aussi été très surpris que la convocation à l’Assemblée générale consultative de la CAPS de décembre 2018 n’ait pas été envoyée aux retraités par vos soins et que vous ayez chargé la Section des anciens de la diffuser, tâche revenant au secrétariat de la CAPS. Comme vous avez pu le constater la grande majorité des participants à cette assemblée était des retraités ce qui démontre leur besoin d’information. Néanmoins la Section des anciens facilite l’accès à l’information à travers les liens établi sur son site (http://www.anciens-bit-ilo.org) avec différents organismes et services dont la CAPS.

Il est donc indispensable que l’information de la CAPS aux retraités continue à être diffusée par voie de courrier papier; les retraités sont de grands bénéficiaires des services de la CAPS vues les pathologies liées à leur âge. Les Statuts et le Règlement administratif de la CAPS ont connu des modifications conséquentes et positives ces dernières années; aussi est-il à présent nécessaire que les retraités disposent d’une édition complète actualisée de ces mises à jour. D’après les informations portées à notre connaissance ce document serait à l’impression. Pour les mêmes raisons qu’évoquées ci-dessus nous demandons que les rapports d’activité de la CAPS ainsi que les bulletins d’information continuent à être diffusés par courrier postal aux retraités.

Enfin nous nous sommes prêts à accompagner toutes les évolutions qui visent à faciliter les services et notamment la saisie en ligne des demandes de remboursement, tout en sachant que tous les retraités ne seront pas en mesure d’utiliser ce nouveau service. Nous pensons à ceux qui vivent dans les pays en développement et aux plus âgées n’utilisant pas ce service ou étant dans l’incapacité de le faire.

Très attachés à leur Caisse de santé les retraités et la Section des anciens sont en permanence disponibles pour évoquer avec le Comité de gestion et le Secrétariat de la CAPS les difficultés rencontrées et trouver des solutions et des améliorations adaptées.

Restant à votre disposition, recevez, Monsieur le Président, l’expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.

François Kientzler
Secrétaire exécutif
Pour le Bureau de la Section des anciens du BIT

Copies : au Syndicat
au Secrétaire exécutif de la CAPS


ILO Centenary: Save the dates! 28 May and 11 July 2019

Category : Archives

28 May 2019: Cocktail to celebrate the ILO Centenary

The Section of Former ILO Officials is organizing a programme of activities commencing at 15.00 in R3 Room II followed by a cocktail at 17.00 in Les Gobelins in celebration of the ILO Centenary on Tuesday 28 May 2019. The Director General, Guy Ryder, will address retirees during the afternoon.

11 July 2019: Centenary Lunch with the Director General

The Director General will be inviting retirees to a lunch to be held on 11 July 2019.

Full information and invitations to these events will be sent later but reserve the dates now in your agendas!

Other events

You may also be interested to know that a visit to the old ILO building, now occupied by the World Trade Organization, is being organized by the ILO for participants of the International Conference noted below which we believe is open to retirees to attend. We understand the visit is planned for 16 April. Anyone wishing to register for this Conference should do so directly with the ILO.

15-17 April: International Conference ILO100: Law for Social Justice, ILO Headquarters, Geneva

The Section of Former Officials is also looking into the possibility of organizing a separate visit to the old ILO buildings in the autumn and further information will be provided if and when available.